Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32440016›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2020

Qualitative sex differences in pain processing: emerging evidence of a biased literature.

Jeffrey S Mogil

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 378 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
378citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

378 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Glial cells in neuropathic pain.Physiological reviews · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Activation of mu-opioid receptors slows pacemaking in hypothalamic A11 dopamine neurons.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

318 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeffrey S MogilDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. jeffrey.mogil@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1359-5720

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although most patients with chronic pain are women, the preclinical literature regarding pain processing and the pathophysiology of chronic pain has historically been derived overwhelmingly from the study of male rodents. This Review describes how the recent adoption by a number of funding agencies of policies mandating the incorporation of sex as a biological variable into preclinical research has correlated with an increase in the number of studies investigating sex differences in pain and analgesia. Trends in the field are analysed, with a focus on newly published findings of qualitative sex differences: that is, those findings that are suggestive of differential processing mechanisms in each sex. It is becoming increasingly clear that robust differences exist in the genetic, molecular, cellular and systems-level mechanisms of acute and chronic pain processing in male and female rodents and humans.

Indexed as

PainPain ManagementSex CharacteristicsAnimalsFemaleHumansMalePain Perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.